U.S. patent application number 12/111174 was filed with the patent office on 2009-10-29 for conflict resolution.
This patent application is currently assigned to MICROSOFT CORPORATION. Invention is credited to Jonathan Beckett Bailor, Ethan Joseph Bernstein, Jonathan Ian Gordner, Kelly Michael Krout, Matthew Eric Mizulo.
Application Number | 20090271696 12/111174 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 41216193 |
Filed Date | 2009-10-29 |
United States Patent
Application |
20090271696 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Bailor; Jonathan Beckett ;
et al. |
October 29, 2009 |
Conflict Resolution
Abstract
Embodiments of a collaborative authoring environment enable a
user to resolve editing conflicts arising when synchronizing a user
copy of a data file with a master copy of the data file. Content
updates may be synchronized separately from metadata updates.
Metadata updates may be synchronized automatically, whereas content
updates may be synchronized only when any identified editing
conflicts are resolved. When an editing conflict is identified, the
user interface of the authoring application may be configured to
toggle between displaying and hiding the identified editing
conflicts.
Inventors: |
Bailor; Jonathan Beckett;
(Bellevue, WA) ; Bernstein; Ethan Joseph; (Mercer
Island, WA) ; Krout; Kelly Michael; (Redmond, WA)
; Mizulo; Matthew Eric; (Kirkland, WA) ; Gordner;
Jonathan Ian; (Seattle, WA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT)
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS
MN
55402-0903
US
|
Assignee: |
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Redmond
WA
|
Family ID: |
41216193 |
Appl. No.: |
12/111174 |
Filed: |
April 28, 2008 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
715/229 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 16/954 20190101;
G06Q 10/10 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
715/229 |
International
Class: |
G06F 17/00 20060101
G06F017/00 |
Claims
1. A method of collaboratively authoring a data file comprising:
identifying at a first authoring application implemented on a first
computing device an editing conflict existing between a user copy
of the data file and a master copy of the data file; merging the
user copy of the data file and the master copy of the data file to
generate a merged copy of the data file; displaying the merged copy
of the data file to the user of the first authoring application;
presenting to a user a toggle interface enabling the user to toggle
between displaying the identified editing conflict and hiding the
identified editing conflict, the toggle interface being presented
when the editing conflict is identified and remaining until the
identified editing conflict has been resolved, wherein the merged
copy of the data file is freely editable by the user both when the
identified editing conflict is displayed and when the identified
editing conflict is hidden; and providing a resolution interface
enabling the user to provide resolution instructions for the
identified editing conflict when the user toggles to displaying the
identified editing conflict.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein enabling the user to provide
resolution instructions comprises enabling the user to select
whether to accept or reject the editing conflict.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at the
first authoring application a plurality of editing conflicts
existing between the user copy of the data file and the master copy
of the data file, wherein presenting the toggle interface to the
user enables the user to toggle between displaying the editing
conflicts and hiding the editing conflicts.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: displaying the
identified editing conflicts when the user toggles to displaying
the identified editing conflicts; wherein the presented resolution
interface enables the user to accept or reject any of the editing
conflicts.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein displaying the identified editing
conflict comprises displaying the identified editing conflict
within context of non-conflicting content.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein displaying the identified editing
conflict comprises annotating the identified editing conflict to
distinguish the identified editing conflict from the
non-conflicting content.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein annotating the identified editing
conflict comprises displaying an origin of the identified editing
conflict.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein hiding the identified editing
conflict comprises removing any annotation from the identified
editing conflict.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving at the first
authoring application an update indicating a current state of the
master copy of the data file to synchronize the user copy of the
data file with the master copy.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising alerting the user
when the editing conflict is identified.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving
instructions to synchronize the user copy of the data file with the
master copy; generating a new copy of the data file based on the
user copy, the new copy including the identified editing conflict,
wherein editing the new copy of the data file does not trigger
presentation of the toggle interface.
12. A computer readable storage medium storing executable
instructions, which perform a method of resolving editing conflicts
when executed by a computing device, the editing conflicts existing
between a user copy of a data file and a master copy of the data
file, the method comprising: presenting a display window to a user
of the computing device, the display window including an editing
area, a summary area, and a resolution interface, wherein the
resolution interface is configured to enable the user to provide
resolution instructions for identified conflicting content selected
by the user; displaying any content locks and content of the user
copy including any identified conflicting content within the
editing area of the display window, wherein the user may edit the
content of the user copy including the identified conflicting
content freely in the editing area, the identified conflicting
content being annotated to distinguish the identified conflicting
content from non-conflicting content; displaying the identified
conflicting content and any identified conflicting content locks
within the summary window; and presenting a toggle interface to the
user, wherein selection of the toggle interface by the user removes
any annotations to the identified conflicting content within the
editing area of the display window.
13. The computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein
election of the toggle interface by the user also removes the
resolution interface from the display window.
14. The computer readable storage medium of claim 12, further
comprising displaying an alert reporting to the user that the
identified conflicting content exists.
15. The computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the
identified conflicting content includes only content that is
inserted or deleted by the user to the user copy of the data file
and that interferes with intervening changes to the master copy of
the data file.
16. A system for collaboratively editing a data file comprising: a
storage device on which a master copy of the data file is stored,
the master copy having master content and master locks; a user
device on which a user copy of the data file is stored, the user
copy having user content and user locks, the user content being
generated based on the master content and the user locks being
generated based on the master locks; an authoring application being
implemented on the user device, the authoring application being
configured to receive from the storage device master content
updates indicating any changes to the master content and master
lock updates indicating any changes to the master locks, the
authoring application also being configured to identify any editing
conflicts between the user copy of the data file and the master
content updates and between the user copy and the master lock
updates, and wherein the authoring application automatically
instantiates any changes to the master locks when the changes to
the master locks do not conflict with any changes to the user
locks; and wherein the authoring application automatically
instantiates any changes to the master content only when no editing
conflicts are identified by the authoring application.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the authoring application also
is configured to send to the storage device user content updates
indicating any changes to the user content only when no editing
conflicts are identified by the authoring application.
18. The system of claim 16, wherein the authoring application also
is configured to send to the storage device user lock updates
indicating any changes to the user locks whether or not editing
conflicts are identified by the authoring application.
19. The system of claim 16, further comprising: a resolution
interface configured to be displayed by the authoring application,
the resolution interface being configured to present the user copy
of the data file including displaying the user locks and displaying
the user content annotated to indicate any identified editing
conflicts.
20. The system of claim 16, further comprising a plurality of user
devices communicatively coupled to the storage device, wherein each
user device is configured to obtain a user copy of the data file,
to receive updates from the storage device at periodic intervals,
and to send updates to the storage device when the identified
editing conflicts are resolved.
Description
BACKGROUND
[0001] Traditional collaborative editing tends to be performed
serially. Users take turns accessing a document, editing the
document, and storing their edits. To inhibit editing conflicts,
the accessing user may place a lock on the file to inhibit other
users from editing the document when the accessing user is editing
the document. The iterative editing process can cause delays since
each user may wait for a turn at editing the document. In addition,
the iterative editing process may be difficult to manage. For
example, each user may need to keep track of who is editing which
portions of the document, which version of the document is the most
recent, and when the user will have a turn.
[0002] In other types of traditional collaborative editing, each
user can edit a different copy of a document. Subsequently, all of
the edited copies may be merged into a single document. This large
scale merge also may cause delays, lead to numerous editing
conflicts, and/or be difficult to manage. For example, the user
responsible for merging the documents may be required to track the
relationship between the documents. The user also may be
responsible for resolving conflicts among two or more of the edited
copies.
[0003] It is with respect to these and other considerations that
the present disclosure has been made.
SUMMARY
[0004] This summary is provided to introduce a selection of
concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in
the Detailed Description. This summary is not intended to identify
key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter,
nor is it intended as an aid in determining the scope of the
claimed subject matter.
[0005] Embodiments of the present disclosure are generally directed
to enabling a user to resolve editing conflicts arising when
synchronizing a data file in a collaborative environment. Each user
authoring a user copy of a data file may resolve editing conflicts
between a master copy of the data file and the user copy. Updates
from the user copy of the data file may be incorporated into the
master copy after editing conflicts have been resolved.
[0006] According to aspects of the disclosure, an authoring
application enables a user to selectively show and hide editing
conflicts within a user copy of a data file. The authoring
application enables free editing of the user copy regardless of
whether or not editing conflicts are shown or hidden. According to
other aspects, authoring application provides a contextual user
interface that enables a user to resolve the displayed editing
conflicts.
[0007] In some embodiments, showing editing conflicts includes
annotating conflicting content. In one embodiment, annotating
conflicting content indicates how the content conflicts. In another
embodiment, only conflicting content inserted, revised, and/or
deleted within the user copy is annotated.
[0008] These and other features and advantages will be apparent
from a reading of the following detailed description and a review
of the associated drawings. It is to be understood that both the
foregoing general description and the following detailed
description are explanatory only and are not restrictive of aspects
as claimed.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0009] FIG. 1 illustrates an example authoring system having
features that are examples of inventive aspects of the
disclosure;
[0010] FIG. 2 is a schematic block diagram illustrating an example
authoring system including a storage device, which stores a master
copy of a data file, communicatively coupled to a user device,
which stores a user copy of the data file, in accordance with the
principles of the disclosure;
[0011] FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example authoring process by which a user copy of a data file
may be authored in accordance with the principles of the
disclosure;
[0012] FIG. 4 is a schematic block diagram of a user computing
system configured to implement an authoring environment in
accordance with the principles of the disclosure;
[0013] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example synchronize process by which the synchronize operation
of FIG. 3 may be implemented in accordance with the principles of
the disclosure;
[0014] FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example editing process by which the continuation operation of
FIG. 5 may be implemented in accordance with the principles of the
disclosure;
[0015] FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example review process by which one or more editing conflicts
may be reviewed and optionally resolved in accordance with the
principles of the disclosure;
[0016] FIG. 8 illustrates an example user interface that is
displayed to a user when no unresolved editing conflicts have been
identified in accordance with the principles of the disclosure;
[0017] FIG. 9 illustrates an example user interface displayed to a
user when at least one editing conflict has been identified in
accordance with the principles of the disclosure;
[0018] FIG. 10 illustrates an example user interface that is
displayed to a user when at least one editing conflict has been
identified and the user has chosen to review the identified editing
conflict in accordance with the principles of the disclosure;
[0019] FIG. 11 is a schematic diagram of a user interface including
a resolution interface that is displayed when an editing conflict
is selected from the listing in the summary window in accordance
with the principles of the present disclosure;
[0020] FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example implementation process by which the authoring
application implements resolution instructions provided by the user
in accordance with the principles of the disclosure;
[0021] FIG. 13 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example accept process by which an accepted editing operation
may be instantiated into the merged version of the data file in
accordance with the principles of the disclosure;
[0022] FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example reject process by which a rejected editing operation may
be removed from or undone within the merged version of a data file
in accordance with the principles of the disclosure;
[0023] FIGS. 15-22 illustrate changes to an example user interface
displayed by an authoring application as a first user is editing a
user copy of a data file online in accordance with the principles
of the disclosure; and
[0024] FIGS. 23-29 illustrate changes to an example user interface
displayed by an authoring application as a first user is editing a
user copy of a data file offline in accordance with the principles
of the disclosure.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0025] In the following detailed description, references are made
to the accompanying drawings that form a part hereof, and in which
are shown by way of illustrations specific embodiments or examples.
While the disclosure will be described in the general context of
program modules that execute in conjunction with an application
program that runs on an operating system on a computer system,
those skilled in the art will recognize that the disclosure also
may be implemented in combination with other program modules. The
embodiments described herein may be combined and other embodiments
may be utilized without departing from the spirit or scope of the
present disclosure. The following detailed description is therefore
not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope of the invention
is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.
[0026] In accordance with the principles of the present disclosure,
a collaborative authoring application provides an authoring
environment in which one or more users can edit one or more data
files (e.g., word processing documents, presentation documents,
spreadsheet documents, pictures or other images, sound files,
software applications, executable code, etc.) via editing
operations (e.g., insertion, revision, and/or deletion of content
and/or metadata). Each user obtains a user copy of the data file
based on a version of the data file represented by a master copy. A
user may edit the user copy of the data file to create a new
version of the data file and periodically synchronize the new
version with the master copy.
[0027] Synchronization, as the term is used herein, refers to the
sending and/or receiving of one or more version updates between the
master copy of the data file and a user copy of the data file to
create a common version of the data file. For example, each user
periodically may send to the master copy a version update
representing the new version of the data file and periodically may
receive from the master copy a version update representing a
current version of the master copy (e.g., which may reflect edits
performed by other users).
[0028] As briefly described above, embodiments of the present
disclosure are directed to enabling a user to resolve editing
conflicts arising when synchronizing a data file in a collaborative
environment. In general, editing conflicts may arise when the
master copy of the data file changes (e.g., editing operations are
performed on the master copy) between when a user copy is obtained
and the user copy is synchronized with the master copy or between
synchronizations. Such changes to the master copy will be referred
to herein as "intervening changes."
[0029] An editing operation performed on a user copy of the data
file results in an editing conflict, as the term is used herein,
when the editing operation interferes with an intervening change
made to the master copy (i.e., or vice versa). For example, if a
user performs an editing operation in a user copy of a data file to
revise a first data unit that was deleted in a master copy of the
data file by an intervening change, then the editing operation
resulting in the revision of the first data unit would conflict
with the editing operation resulting in the deletion of the first
data unit in the master copy.
[0030] Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 illustrates an example
authoring system 100 having features that are examples of inventive
aspects of the disclosure. The authoring system 100 includes a
storage device 120 storing a master copy 150 of a data file (e.g.,
word processing documents, presentation documents, spreadsheet
documents, pictures or other images, sound files, software
applications, executable code, etc.). In one embodiment, the
storage device 120 can include one or more storage devices (e.g., a
network of storage devices). In another embodiment, the storage
device 120 can include one or more computing devices.
[0031] The authoring system 100 also includes at least one user
computing device 110 that may be communicatively coupled to the
storage device 120. As the term is used herein, a user computing
device 110 includes any device configured to obtain and author a
user copy 155 of a data file from a master copy 150 of the data
file. As the term is used herein, authoring a data file may include
creating the data file and/or editing the data file via editing
operations. Each of the user computing devices 110 can author the
data file by creating a user copy 155 of the data file based on the
master copy 150. The user device 110 may edit the user copy 155
when the user device 110 is communicatively coupled to the storage
device 120 (i.e., online) or when the user device 110 is
disconnected from the storage device 120 (i.e., offline).
[0032] The user copy 155 of the data file may be synchronized when
the user computing device 110 communicatively couples to the
storage device 120 (i.e., is online) and periodically sends to the
storage device 120 one or more updates to be incorporated into the
master copy 150 and, thereby, shared with other user computing
devices. Synchronization of the user copy 155 also includes
periodically obtaining from the storage device 120 updates from the
master copy 150 that originated from other user computing devices.
When a user computing device 110 is offline, the user computing
device does not synchronize with the storage device 120 and, hence,
the other user computing devices.
[0033] Additional details pertaining to synchronization of a user
copy of a data file with a master copy can be found in co-pending
application Ser. No. 11/938,082, filed Nov. 9, 2007, and entitled
"Collaborative Authoring," the disclosure of which is hereby
incorporated herein in its entirety. Additional details pertaining
to synchronization when the user computing device is offline can be
found in co-pending application Ser. No. 11/957,010, filed Dec. 14,
2007, and entitled "Collaborative Authoring Modes," the disclosure
of which is hereby incorporated herein in its entirety.
[0034] In the example shown in FIG. 1, four user computing devices
110A, 110B, 110C, and 110D are communicatively coupled to a storage
device 120. In other embodiments, however, any number of user
computing devices 110 may be coupled to the storage device 120. In
the example shown, each user computing device 110A, 110B, 110C,
110D can send to the storage device 120 updates generated by the
user of the user computing device and can request from the storage
device 120 updates generated by the users of the other user
computing devices.
[0035] The user computing devices 110A, 110B, 110C, 110D can be a
different device from the storage device 120 or can include
different user accounts implemented on the storage device 120. In
one embodiment, a device that acts as a storage device 120 for one
data file may act as a user computing device 110 for a different
data file and vice versa. In one embodiment, the storage device 120
can be a server computing device and the user computing devices
110A, 110B, 110C, 110D can be client computing devices.
[0036] According to aspects of the disclosure, updates to the data
file include content updates and/or metadata updates. As the term
is used herein, content updates refer to any editing operation made
to the substantive content of a data file. For example, content
updates for a word processing document can include added paragraphs
(i.e., or sections thereof), deleted paragraphs (i.e., or section
thereof), revised paragraphs (i.e., or sections thereof), and
additions, deletions, and/or changes to tables, charts, images, or
other such objects. In another embodiment, content updates for a
presentation document can include added, deleted, and/or revised
pictures, text, animations, sounds, and other such data
objects.
[0037] As the term is used herein, metadata updates refer to any
editing operation made to metadata of the data file. Non-limiting
examples of metadata include content locks, presence information,
and other such data. Presence information indicates which users
have indicated an intention to edit the document. Content locks
inhibit editing of any content within the lock by users that do not
own the lock. For example, content locks may inhibit editing
conflicts by indicating which portions of a document or other data
file have been claimed by another user. In some embodiments, the
content locks can prevent (i.e., bar) a user from editing a portion
of a document that has been claimed by another user. In other
embodiments, however, the user can choose to break the content lock
and edit the portion of the data file. In such cases, the authoring
application can warn the user that conflicts may arise when editing
the locked portion.
[0038] As shown in FIG. 2, content 152 and metadata 154 of a data
file can be stored in memory 125 of the storage device 120. In some
embodiments, the metadata 154 of the data file can be stored
separately from the content 152. For example, the content 152 can
be stored in the data file 150 and the metadata 154 can be stored
in a table (not shown) separate from the data file 150. In other
embodiments, however, the metadata 154 can be stored within the
data file 150. Content 152' and metadata 154' of the user copy 155
of the data file can be stored in a cache (see cache 426 in FIG. 4)
on a user computing device 110. One or more authoring applications
130 on the user computing device 110 process and manipulate the
content 152' and/or the metadata 154' of the user copy 155 of the
data file.
[0039] In general, the user computing devices 110 can synchronize
content updates separately from metadata updates. In some
embodiments, metadata updates are automatically synchronized among
the storage device 120 and user computing devices 110, whereas
content updates from each user computing device 110 are
synchronized at the request of the respective user. In one
embodiment, the authoring environment 100 may synchronize content
updates only when editing conflicts do not exist (i.e., or have
been resolved), but may synchronize metadata updates regardless of
existing editing conflicts.
[0040] In one embodiment, an editing conflict may stem from a
content update received from the master copy. In such an
embodiment, changes to content 152' and/or metadata 154' of the
user copy 155 interfere with intervening changes to the content 152
of the master copy 150. Such editing conflicts are referred to
herein as mergeable conflicts. For example, in one embodiment, the
same data unit may have been edited differently in the user copy
and the master copy of the data file in between synchronizations.
In another embodiment, the data unit may have been edited in the
master copy 150 before a content lock obtained on the data unit in
the user copy 155 was synchronized with the master copy 150.
[0041] In another embodiment, an editing conflict may stem from a
metadata update received from the master copy 150. In such an
embodiment, changes to the content 152' and/or metadata 154' of the
user copy 155 interfere with intervening changes to the metadata
154 of the master copy 150 (e.g., the addition of content locks).
Such editing conflicts are referred to herein as unmergeable
conflicts. For example, the user device 110 may receive a metadata
update from the master copy 150 of a data file indicating that
content revised in the user copy 155 has already been locked by
another user.
[0042] In one embodiment, changes to the metadata 154' of a user
copy 155 of a data file that interfere with intervening changes to
the master copy 150 are overridden by the intervening changes to
the master copy 150. For example, if the storage device 120
receives a metadata update from a first user device 110A (FIG. 1)
requesting a content lock on a first data unit of a data file and
determines the corresponding first data unit of the master copy 150
is locked already to a second user device 110B (FIG. 1), then the
storage device 120 will deny the lock request of the first user
device 110A.
[0043] FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example authoring process 300 by which an authoring application
may author a user copy of a data file, such as user copy 155 of
FIG. 2. The authoring process 300 initializes and begins at a start
module 302 and proceeds to an author operation 304. In general, the
author operation 304 edits the user copy of the data file. In one
embodiment, the author operation 304 obtains a user copy of the
data file based on a master copy of an existing data file (e.g.,
from a storage device). In another embodiment, the author operation
304 creates and edits a new data file, generates a master copy of
the data file (e.g., periodically or when editing is completed),
and stores the master copy of the data file (e.g., on a storage
device).
[0044] A receive operation 306 obtains at the authoring application
updates indicating intervening changes made to the master copy of
the data file. For example, in one embodiment, the receive
operation 306 obtains a content update indicating any intervening
changes made to the content of the master copy by one or more other
users authoring the data file. In another embodiment, the receive
operation 306 obtains a metadata update indicating any intervening
changes made to the metadata of the master copy by one or more
other users authoring the data file. In another embodiment, the
receive operation 306 obtains both content and metadata
updates.
[0045] In one embodiment, the receive operation 306 receives
updates from the master copy at predetermined intervals. In another
embodiment, the receive operation 306 receives an update from the
master copy when a threshold amount of editing has been performed
on the master copy. In another embodiment, the receive operation
306 receives an update from the master copy in response to a
request for the update. For example, the receive operation 306 may
request an update from the master copy in order to update the data
file before saving the data file. In such an embodiment, the
receive operation 306 requests an update from the master copy when
instructions to synchronize the data file are received from the
user.
[0046] An update operation 308 instantiates the intervening changes
into the user copy of the document (e.g., by merging the
intervening changes into the user copy of the document). In one
embodiment, the update operation 308 instantiates intervening
metadata changes differently from intervening content changes. In
one embodiment, the update operation 308 may instantiate content
updates and metadata updates automatically. In another embodiment,
the update operation 308 may instantiate metadata updates
automatically and may instantiate content updates at the request of
the user. For example, the update operation 308 may present a
button or other interface tool to the user indicating the
availability of updates that may be instantiated by selecting the
button or other interface tool.
[0047] The update operation 308 also may determine whether any
editing conflicts exist. In some embodiments, the update operation
308 may instantiate the intervening changes differently depending
on whether editing conflicts are identified. For example, in one
embodiment, the update operation 308 may inhibit instantiation of
content updates when editing conflicts are identified, but may
continue to instantiate metadata updates automatically despite the
existence of editing conflicts. Advantageously, synchronizing the
metadata updates despite the existence of editing conflicts may
mitigate the creation of further editing conflicts. For example,
synchronizing lock data may inhibit concurrent editing of the same
data unit by different users.
[0048] A synchronize operation 310 attempts to synchronize the user
copy with the master copy by forwarding to the master copy updates
indicating changes made to the user copy of the data file. In one
embodiment, the synchronize operation 310 forwards the updates for
distribution to other users collaboratively authoring the data
file. The synchronize operation 310 only stores the user copy as
the master copy (i.e., overwrites the master copy) if no editing
conflicts between the user copy and the master copy are identified.
In one embodiment, the synchronize operation 310 obtains the most
recent version of the master copy and determines whether editing
conflicts exist between the user copy and the most recent version
of the master copy.
[0049] According to aspects of the disclosure, the synchronize
operation 310 may enable the user to initiate resolution of the
editing conflicts at any time after the editing conflict has been
identified at the discretion of the user. The synchronize operation
310 may enable the user to continue freely editing the user copy of
the data file even though one or more editing conflicts have been
determined to exist. In one embodiment, the synchronize operation
310 may continue to edit the user copy with editing conflicts being
hidden from the user. In another embodiment, the synchronize
operation 310 may continue to edit the user copy with editing
conflicts being presented to the user. If editing of the user copy
is continued despite the existence of one or more editing
conflicts, then content updates indicating changes to the user copy
may be stored locally until the editing conflicts are resolved
instead of being forwarded to the master copy for synchronization
as will be discussed in greater detail herein.
[0050] The synchronize operation 310 may synchronize metadata
updates differently from content updates. For example, in one
embodiment, the synchronize operation 310 may forward content
updates only if all editing conflicts have been resolved and may
forward metadata updates regardless of whether editing conflicts
have been resolved. As noted above, synchronizing the metadata
updates despite the existence of editing conflicts may mitigate the
creation of further editing conflicts. Furthermore, ceasing to
synchronize content updates when editing conflicts exist may
inhibit introducing the editing conflicts into the master copy of
the data file. The authoring process 300 completes and ends at a
stop module 312.
[0051] In general, an authoring environment having features that
are examples of inventive aspects in accordance with the principles
of the disclosure can be implemented on a user computing device
(e.g., a personal computer, a server computer, a notebook computer,
a PDA, a Smartphone, or any other such computing device). A
non-limiting embodiment of a user computing system 400 configured
to implement an authoring environment and perform authoring
processes, such as authoring process 300 of FIG. 3, is described
herein with reference to FIG. 4.
[0052] In FIG. 4, the exemplary computing system 400 for
implementing the principles of the disclosure includes a user
computing device, such as user computing device 410. In a basic
configuration, the user computing device 410 typically includes at
least one processing unit 415 for executing applications and
programs stored in system memory 420. Depending on the exact
configuration and type of computing device 910, the system memory
420 may include, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash
memory, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical
storage devices, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk
storage or other magnetic storage devices, or other memory
technology.
[0053] System memory 420 typically stores an operating system 422,
such as the WINDOWS.RTM. operating systems from MICROSOFT
CORPORATION of Redmond, Wash., suitable for controlling the
operation of the computing device 410. System memory 420 also may
include a data file cache 426 in which a user copy 427 of a
document can be stored. Metadata 429 of the data file also can be
stored within the user cache 426.
[0054] The system memory 420 also may store one or more software
applications, such as authoring applications 424 for creating and
editing data files. One non-limiting example of an authoring
application 424 suitable for authoring documents in accordance with
the principles of the present disclosure is MICROSOFT.RTM. OFFICE
WORD authoring software from MICROSOFT CORPORATION of Redmond,
Wash. Other non-limiting examples of authoring applications include
POWERPOINT.RTM. presentation software and VISIO.RTM. drawing and
diagramming software, both also from MICROSOFT CORPORATION of
Redmond, Wash.
[0055] Computing device 410 also may have input device(s) 430, such
as a keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device,
etc., for entering and manipulating data. Output device(s) 435,
such as a display screen, speakers, printer, etc., also may be
included. These output devices 435 are well known in the art and
need not be discussed at length herein.
[0056] The computing device 410 also may contain communication
connections 440 that allow the device 410 to communicate with other
computing devices, for example, the storage device 120 of FIG. 1,
over a network in a distributed computing environment (e.g., an
intranet or the Internet). By way of example, and not limitation,
communication device media 440 includes wired media such as a wired
network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media, such as
acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media.
[0057] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example synchronize process 500 by which the synchronize
operation 310 of FIG. 3 may be implemented. The synchronize process
500 initializes and begins at a start module 502 and proceeds to an
obtain operation 504. The obtain operation 504 acquires a version
update from the master copy. For example, in one embodiment, the
obtain operation 504 may request the version update from the master
copy. In another embodiment, the receive operation 504 may receive
periodic version updates from the master copy (e.g., at
predetermined intervals).
[0058] An identify operation 506 determines whether editing
conflicts exist between the current version of the master copy and
the user copy. More specifically, the identify operation 506
determines whether any intervening changes to the master copy and
any editing operations performed on the user copy since the most
recent synchronization (i.e., or since the user copy was obtained)
interfere with one other.
[0059] A merge operation 508 combines the user copy and the master
copy into a merged version of the data file and presents the merged
version to the user. In one embodiment, the merge operation 508
integrates the intervening changes into the user copy of the data
file. In another embodiment, the merge operation 508 integrates the
user changes into the master copy of the data file. In another
embodiment, the merge operation 508 integrates the intervening
changes and the user changes into the most recently synchronized
version of the master copy (i.e., the version of the master copy
that was obtained and edited by the user).
[0060] A first determination module 510 splits the flow of the
synchronize process 500 based on whether any editing conflicts were
identified by the identify operation 506 and/or whether any
identified editing conflicts from previously received updates
remain unresolved. If the first determination module 510 determines
at least one editing conflict has been identified, then an alert
operation 512 indicates the presence of the editing conflict to the
user. For example, the alert operation 512 may present a message to
the user indicating the existence of one or more editing conflicts.
In one embodiment, the alert operation 512 also may indicate
consequences of having unresolved, identified editing conflicts
(e.g., the inability to fully synchronize the user copy with the
master copy until the editing conflict is resolved).
[0061] A second determination module 514 enables the user to choose
when to review and resolve the identified editing conflict. In the
example shown, the second determination module 514 presents to the
user an option of reviewing the editing conflict or continuing to
edit the user copy of the data file without viewing the editing
conflict. If the second determination module 514 determines the
continued editing option has been selected by the user, then a
continue operation 516 enables the user to edit the data file
freely as will be discussed in greater detail herein.
[0062] If the second determination module 514 determines the review
option has been selected by the user, however, then a review
operation 518 enables the user to review and optionally to resolve
the editing conflict using a resolution process that will be
discussed in greater detail herein. When the review operation 518
completes, the synchronize process 500 proceeds back to the first
determination module 510 to determine whether any editing conflicts
remain unresolved. The operation flow described above repeats until
the first determination module 510 determines no editing conflicts
exist.
[0063] When the first determination module 510 determines no
editing conflicts exist, then a third determination module 520
determines whether all intervening changes from the master copy
have been obtained and instantiate into the user copy. For example,
the third determination module 520 may determine whether any
intervening changes have been made to the master copy since the
most recent update. In one embodiment, the third determination
module 520 compares a version number of the current version of the
master copy with a version number of the version of the master copy
represented by the most recently received update.
[0064] If the third determination module 520 determines additional
intervening changes exist (i.e., that the most recently received
update does not reflect the current state of the master copy), then
the synchronize process 500 returns to the obtain operation 504 and
the synchronize process 500 begins again. If the third
determination module 520 determines no additional intervening
changes exist (i.e., that the most recently received update
reflects the current state of the master copy), however, then an
indicate operation 522 provides an indication the editing conflict
has been resolved. For example, in one embodiment, the indicate
operation 522 may display a message to the user indicating that all
editing conflicts have been resolved. In another embodiment, the
indicate operation 522 may display a graphic, icon, or other
indicia to the user indicating the editing conflicts have been
resolved. A store operation 524 overwrites the master copy of the
data file with the user copy. The synchronize process 500 completes
and ends at a stop module 526.
[0065] FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example editing process 600 by which the continuation operation
516 of FIG. 5 may be implemented. The editing process 600
initializes and begins at a start module 602 and proceeds to a
receive operation 604. The receive operation 604 obtains editing
instructions from the user. For example, the receive operation 604
may receive user input through an input device, such as input
device 430 of FIG. 4.
[0066] The editing instructions indicate changes to content and/or
metadata of the merged version of the user copy of the data file.
For example, the editing instructions may indicate a data unit
(e.g., a paragraph, a column, a table, a slide, a graphic, etc.) of
the new data file should be added, deleted, or revised. The editing
instructions also may indicate a change in metadata (e.g., a change
in content locks, etc.). An implement operation 606 performs the
editing operation on the new copy of the document.
[0067] A determination module 608 determines whether the user has
indicated a desire to stop editing. For example, in a first
embodiment, the determination module 608 may determine the user has
chosen to resolve editing conflicts. In another embodiment, the
determination module 608 determines the user has chosen to close
the new copy of the data file or to synchronize the new copy with
the master copy of the data file. In another embodiment, the
determination module 608 may determine the user has chosen to
continue editing the new copy of the data file.
[0068] If the determination module 608 determines the user has
chosen to continue editing the data file, then the editing process
600 cycles back to the receive operation 604 and begins again. If
the determination module 608 determines the user has chosen to stop
editing the data file, however, then a save operation 610 stores
any changes made by the user. Generally, the save operation 610
stores the merged version of the data file including any changes
made by the user in a location other than the master copy of the
data file. In one embodiment, the save operation 610 stores the
merged version of the data file in local memory (e.g., a local
cache). In another embodiment, the save operation 610 may store the
merged version of the data file on a storage device separate from
the master copy. The editing process 600 completes and ends at a
stop module 612.
[0069] FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example review process 700 by which one or more editing
conflicts may be reviewed and optionally resolved. For example, the
review process 700 is one example process for implementing the
review process 518 of FIG. 5. The review process 700 initializes
and begins at a start module 702 and proceeds to a display
operation 704. The display operation 704 presents the editing
conflicts to the user. In one embodiment, the editing conflicts are
provided within the context of the merged version of the data
file.
[0070] In some embodiments, the display operation 704 displays all
conflicting edits from both the master copy and the user copy. For
example, in one embodiment, the display operation 704 may display
content resulting from the conflicting editing operations as merged
into the user copy of the data file. In another embodiment, the
display operation 704 may display content resulting from the
conflicting editing operations as merged into the master copy of
the data file. In another embodiment, the display operation 704 may
display content resulting from the conflicting editing operations
as merged into the version of the data file prior to any
intervening changes.
[0071] In one embodiment, if conflicting editing operations are
made to the same object (e.g., a character, a word, a paragraph, a
graphic, a slide, a cell, a row, a column, etc.) within the data
file, then the display operation 704 will display the object
transformed by both editing operations. In another embodiment, the
display operation 704 will display two copies of the object, one
copy representing the version of the object found in the master
copy of the data file and the other copy representing the version
of the object found in the user copy of the data file.
[0072] In one embodiment, the display operation 704 displays the
conflicting content as annotations to the non-conflicting content
of the merged version of the data file. For example, in one
embodiment, conflicting content added to the data file, either in
the master copy or in the user copy, may be shown added to the
non-conflicting content and annotated to indicate the conflicting
content was inserted in one version of the data file. In another
embodiment, conflicting content removed from the data file, either
in the master copy or in the user copy, may be shown added to the
non-conflicting content and annotated to indicate the conflicting
content was deleted in one version of the data file. Additional
disclosure relating to the display of conflicting edits will be
provided herein.
[0073] An obtain operation 706 receives authoring instructions from
the user. For example, the obtain operation 706 may receive user
input through an input device, such as input device 430 of FIG. 4.
A first determination module 708 determines whether the user has
provided instructions to return to continuing to edit the data file
freely instead of continuing to review editing conflicts. For
example, in one embodiment, the first determination module 708 may
determine the user has selected a toggle interface, which will be
disclosed in greater detail herein. In another embodiment, the
first determination module 708 may determine the user has provided
instructions to accept or reject one or more of the conflicting
editing operations.
[0074] If the first determination module 708 determines the user
has provided instructions to return to editing, then the review
process 700 completes and ends at a stop module 714 even if
identified editing conflicts remain unresolved. If the first
determination module 708 determines the user has not provided
instructions to return to editing, however, then an implement
operation 710 performs the user instructions. In general, the
implement operation 710 may accept or reject each editing operation
in accordance with the instructions provided by the user. For
example, in one embodiment, the implement operation 710 may
instantiate a conflicting editing operation into the merged version
of the data file if the user provides instructions to accept the
editing operation. In another embodiment, the implement operation
710 may remove the effects of a rejected editing operation from the
merged version of the data file. Additional details regarding
performance of the implement operation 710 are provided herein.
[0075] A second determination module 712 determines whether any
identified editing conflicts remain unresolved. In one embodiment,
the second determination module 712 does not determine whether any
new editing conflicts have been created since the most recent
identification of editing conflicts (e.g., through updates received
from the master copy, through additional editing operations
performed by the user, etc.). Rather, the second determination
module 712 determines whether any of the editing conflicts already
identified remain unresolved. In another embodiment, the second
determination module 712 determines whether any new editing
conflicts exist.
[0076] If the second determination module 712 determines at least
one identified editing conflict remains unresolved, then the
resolution process 700 cycles back to the first determination
module 708. If the second determination module 712 determines the
identified editing conflicts have been resolved, however, then the
resolution process 700 completes and ends at the stop module
714.
[0077] In general, the user interface displayed by the authoring
application on the user device, such as authoring application 130
on user device 110 of FIG. 2, may change based on whether one or
more editing conflicts have been identified by the authoring
application. In some embodiments, the authoring application may
display alerts indicating the existence of editing conflicts to the
user. For example, in one embodiment, a status bar may indicate the
existence of editing conflicts. In another embodiment, a message
box providing indicia indicating consequences of the editing
conflicts may be displayed to the user. For example, the message
box may indicate content cannot be synchronized until the
identified editing conflicts are resolved.
[0078] In addition, when an editing conflict is identified, the
user interface of the authoring application may be configured to
toggle between showing editing conflicts and hiding editing
conflicts at the discretion of the user. In general, the user
interface of the authoring application enables free editing of the
data file both when editing conflicts are shown and when editing
conflicts are hidden. The user interface enables additional
functionality enabling review and resolution of editing conflicts
when the user chooses to view editing conflicts.
[0079] FIGS. 8-10 are schematic block diagrams illustrating example
user interfaces that an authoring application may display to a user
to enable authoring and synchronization of a data file. FIG. 8
illustrates an example user interface 800 that is displayed to a
user when no unresolved editing conflicts have been identified. For
example, the authoring application may display user interface 800
when the editing operation 304 of FIG. 3 is being performed.
[0080] The user interface 800 includes an authoring window 810 in
which the user copy of the data file may be displayed. In one
embodiment, the authoring window 810 includes an editing area 812
in which the content of the user copy is displayed. Metadata of the
data file (e.g., content locks) also may be displayed in the
editing area 812. The user of the authoring application may
interact with the content in the editing area 812 to add, delete,
or revise the displayed content.
[0081] FIG. 9 illustrates an example user interface 850 displayed
to a user when at least one editing conflict has been identified.
For example, the authoring application may display the user
interface 850 when the user chooses to continue editing the data
file instead of resolving conflicts (e.g., see first determination
module 516 of FIG. 5). In one embodiment, the user interface 850 is
displayed when the editing process 600 of FIG. 6 is being
performed.
[0082] The user interface 850 includes the authoring window 810 of
FIG. 8 having the editing area 812 in which the content and
metadata of the data file may be displayed and/or edited. The user
interface 850 also includes a toggle interface 815. In general,
selection of the toggle interface 815 by the user will cause the
user interface to display identified editing conflicts. In one
embodiment, selection of the toggle interface 815 also will
activate a conflict resolution interface.
[0083] FIG. 10 illustrates an example user interface 900 that is
displayed to a user when at least one editing conflict has been
identified and the user has chosen to review the identified editing
conflict. The user interface 900 also may enable resolution of the
identified editing conflicts. For example, the authoring
application may display the user interface 900 when the user
chooses to review editing conflicts (see first determination module
514 of FIG. 5). Accordingly, in one embodiment, the user interface
900 is displayed when the review process 700 of FIG. 7 is being
performed.
[0084] The user interface 900 also includes a toggle interface 915
by which the user may hide identified editing conflicts. In one
embodiment, selection of the toggle interface 915 also will
deactivate the conflict resolution interface 920. For example,
selection of the toggle interface 915 may cause the user interface
850 of FIG. 9 to be displayed to the user instead of the user
interface 900.
[0085] The user interface 900 includes an authoring window 910
having an editing area 912 in which the content and metadata of the
data file may be displayed and/or edited. The editing area 912 also
displays identified editing conflicts or content resulting from
identified editing conflicts. For example, in one embodiment, the
editing area 912 may display a merged version of the data file
generated by merging the user copy with the master copy.
[0086] In some embodiments, the identified editing conflicts
displayed within the editing area 912 are indicated via annotations
to the content resulting from the conflicting editing operations.
In one embodiment, the annotations indicate how of the resulting
content conflicts. For example, in one embodiment, a section of
content (e.g., a word, a paragraph, a table, a column, a graphic,
etc.) may be annotated to indicate the section was inserted,
deleted, and/or revised in the user copy and/or the master copy.
Example annotations indicating such insertion, deletion, and/or
revision may include a predetermined color, a strikethrough,
underlining, a predetermined opacity, highlighting, or other such
indicia.
[0087] The user interface 900 also can include a summary window 920
in which the authoring application may communicate information
about identified editing conflicts to the user. In some
embodiments, the summary window 920 can include a summary
information area 922. For example, the summary information area 922
may display the number of editing conflicts identified by the
authoring application and remaining unresolved. The summary
information area 922 also may indicate the number of mergeable and
unmergeable editing conflicts. In one embodiment, the summary
information area 922 may be refreshed (i.e., updated) as the
editing conflicts are resolved.
[0088] In some embodiments, the summary window 920 also may display
a listing 924 of any unresolved editing conflicts. For example, in
one embodiment, all conflicting content (e.g., content added,
deleted, and/or revised in the user copy or the master copy) is
listed within the summary window 920. In one embodiment, the listed
content may be annotated to indicate an origin of the content
(e.g., the user copy or the master copy). In another embodiment,
the listed content may be annotated to indicate a type of editing
action (e.g., revision, insertion, deletion, etc.) yielding the
content.
[0089] The user interface 900 may be configured to enable a user to
resolve the displayed editing conflicts. For example, the user
interface 900 may enable the user to provide resolution
instructions for one or more displayed editing conflicts. In one
embodiment, the user interface 900 enables the user to provide
resolution instructions for the displayed editing conflicts in
accordance with a sequence. In another embodiment, the user
interface 900 enables the user to provide resolution instructions
for any displayed editing conflict selected by the user.
[0090] Examples of resolution instructions include an accept
instruction by which the user indicates a given editing operation
should be instantiated into the merged version of the data file and
a reject instruction by which the user indicates the editing
operation should not be performed on the merged version of the data
file. Other examples of resolution instructions may include a next
instruction by which the user proceeds to a subsequent editing
conflict without resolving the currently selected editing conflict
and a back instruction by which the user returns to a previous
editing conflict without resolving the currently selected editing
conflict.
[0091] In some embodiments, the user may provide a resolution
instruction by interacting with one or more resolution interfaces
930. Non-limiting examples of resolution interfaces include buttons
(e.g., an accept button, a reject button, a next button, etc.),
drop-down menus, tabs, and other such interface tools. In one
embodiment, the user interface 900 displays one or more resolution
interfaces to the user when the editing conflicts are displayed. In
another embodiment, the user interface 900 displays one or more
resolution interfaces to the user when conflicting content is
selected by the user.
[0092] For example, the user may provide a resolution instruction
by selecting (e.g., via a cursor or other input interface) content
within the editing area 912 that results from one of the
conflicting editing operations and interacting with a resolution
interface. In other embodiments, the user may provide a resolution
instruction by selecting an editing operation displayed within the
summary window 920 and interacting with a resolution interface to
provide or select a resolution instruction.
[0093] For example, in FIG. 11, the user interface 900 includes a
resolution interface 930 that is displayed when an editing conflict
925 is selected from the listing 924 in the summary window 920. The
resolution interface 930 shown in FIG. 11 includes an accept button
932 and a reject button 934. In other embodiments, however, the
resolution interface 930 may include any desired interface tool. In
the example shown in FIG. 11, the resolution interface 930 is
displayed as a pop-up window. In other embodiments, however, the
resolution interface 930 may include a toolbar or section thereof,
a drop down menu or portion thereof, or other such display
interface.
[0094] FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example implementation process 1000 by which the authoring
application implements resolution instructions provided by the
user. The implementation process 1000 initializes and begins at a
start module 1002 and proceeds to an obtain operation 1004. The
obtain operation 1004 receives a resolution instruction from the
user for resolving conflicting content. For example, the obtain
operation 1004 may determine a given section of conflicting content
has been selected by the user and a particular button, menu option,
or other resolution interface tool has been selected by the
user.
[0095] A determination module 1006 determines whether the
resolution instruction indicates the selected conflicting content
is to be accepted or rejected. If the determination module 1006
determines the obtain operation 1004 receives an accept
instruction, then the implementation process 1000 proceeds to an
accept operation 1008. If the determination module 1006 determines
the obtain operation 1004 receives a reject instruction, however,
then the implementation process 1000 proceeds to a reject operation
1010. Details regarding example processes for implementing the
accept and reject operations 1008, 1010 are discussed below with
reference to FIGS. 13 and 14. The implementation process 1000
completes and ends at a stop module 1012.
[0096] FIG. 13 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example accept process 1100 by which an accepted editing
operation may be instantiated into the merged version of the data
file. The accept process 1100 initializes and begins at a start
module 1102 and proceeds to a clean operation 1104. The clean
operation 1104 removes any annotations or other indicia from the
accepted content. For example, any underlining, strikethroughs,
coloring, or other such annotations of the accepted content are
removed from the merged version of the data file.
[0097] A determination module 1106 determines whether or not the
accepted content resulted in content and/or formatting being added
into the data file. For example, in one embodiment, the
determination module 1106 determines whether or not the accepted
content includes a character, word, table, column, graphic, or
other data unit to the data file. In another embodiment, the
determination module 1106 determines whether the accepted content
added any formatting (e.g., bold, underlining, font color,
highlighting, etc.) to the data file.
[0098] If the determination module 1106 determines the accepted
editing operation resulted in content and/or formatting being
added, then the accept process 1100 complete and ends at the stop
module 1110. If the determination module 1106 determines the
accepted editing operation removes content and/or formatting from
the data file, however, then a remove operation 1108 deletes the
content and/or formatting from the merged version of the data file.
The accept process 1100 completes and ends at the stop module 1110
after completion of the remove operation 1108.
[0099] FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating an operational flow for
an example reject process 1200 by which a rejected editing
operation may be removed from or undone within the merged version
of a data file. The reject process 1200 initializes and begins at a
start module 1202 and proceeds to a clean operation 1204. The clean
operation 1204 removes any annotations or other indicia from the
content resulting from the rejected editing operation. For example,
any underlining, strikethroughs, coloring, or other such
annotations of the content are removed from the merged version of
the data file.
[0100] A determination module 1206 determines whether or not the
rejected editing operation would have resulted in content and/or
formatting being added to the data file. For example, in one
embodiment, the fourth determination module 1206 determines whether
or not the rejected editing operation would have added a character,
word, row, cell, or other data unit or content object to the data
file. In another embodiment, the determination module 1206
determines whether the rejected editing operation would have added
any formatting (e.g., bold, underlining, font color, highlighting,
etc.) to the data file.
[0101] If the determination module 1206 determines the rejected
editing operation would not have resulted in content and/or
formatting being added to the data file, then the reject process
1200 complete and ends at the stop module 1210. If the
determination module 1206 determines the rejected editing operation
would have added content and/or formatting, however, then a remove
operation 1208 deletes the content and/or formatting from the
merged version of the data file. The reject process 1200 completes
and ends at the stop module 1220 after completion of the remove
operation 1208.
[0102] The principles of the present disclosure can be better
understood by walking through example applications. In a first
example application, FIGS. 15-22 illustrate changes to an example
user interface displayed by an authoring application as a first
user is editing a user copy of a data file online. In a second
example application, FIGS. 23-29 illustrate changes to an example
user interface displayed by an authoring application as a first
user is editing a user copy of a data file offline.
[0103] In FIG. 15, a user interface 2000 of an authoring
application includes a display window 2010 including an editing
area 2012 displaying content of the user copy of the data file, a
command toolbar 2016 providing command options, and a status bar
2018 indicating a status of the user copy of the data file. For
example, the status bar 2018 may indicate when content updates are
available for instantiation into the user copy of the data file.
The status bar 2018 also may indicate when editing conflicts have
been identified. In the example shown, the status bar 2018
indicates no content updates are available from the master copy of
the data file.
[0104] The authoring application enables editing of the user copy
of the data file, for example, using the example authoring process
300 of FIG. 3. In the example shown, the authoring application
enables the first user to edit the user copy of the data file
freely (see edit operation 304 of FIG. 3) within the editing area
2012 of the display window 2010. In FIG. 15, the first user is
editing a first data unit of content displayed in the editing area
2012. The first user has arranged a cursor 2019 over the first data
unit to enable editing of the first data unit. A second user has
obtained a lock 2022 on a second data unit of content within the
editing area 2012. The lock 2022, which is displayed within the
editing area 2012, inhibits the first user from freely editing the
second data unit.
[0105] In FIG. 16, the first user has edited the first data unit to
change the word "dog" to "doe". In one embodiment, changing the
word "dog" to "doe" includes providing an editing operation to
delete the word "dog" and an editing operation to insert the word
"doe". In another embodiment, changing the word "dog" to "doe"
includes providing an editing operation to delete the character "g"
and an editing operation to insert the character "e". In other
embodiments, other editing operations may be utilized to achieve
the same results.
[0106] In one embodiment, editing of the first data unit initiates
a transmission to the master copy of the data file of a request by
the first user to lock the first data unit. In another embodiment,
the first user may provide express instructions to lock the first
data unit. For example, the first user may select the first data
unit and select a lock option on the user interface 2000.
Accordingly, a lock 2024 owned by the first user has been placed
around the first data unit in FIG. 16. In the example shown, the
lock 2024 is distinguished from the lock 2022 owned by the second
user. For example, the lock 2024 owned by the first user is
displayed in dotted lines and the lock 2022 owned by the second
user is displayed in solid lines. Distinguishing locks owned by the
first user from locks owned by other users may enable the first
user to know which data unit the first user has locked without
deterring the first user from editing the data unit. In one
embodiment, each user may have a distinct lock (e.g., each user's
lock may have a distinct color, shading, formatting, etc.).
[0107] In FIG. 16A, the authoring application obtains updates
indicating intervening changes made to the master copy of the data
file (see receive operation 306 of FIG. 3). In one embodiment, the
authoring application receives the update after a predetermined
interval of time elapses. In another embodiment, the authoring
application receives the update in response to a request to
synchronize the user copy with the master copy. For the purposes of
this example application, the authoring application is assumed to
have received the update automatically after a predetermined time
interval. The status bar 2018 of the display window 2010 has been
updated in FIG. 16A to indicate an update has been received.
[0108] In one embodiment, the authoring application receives a
metadata update from the master copy. In another embodiment, the
authoring application receives a content update from the master
copy. In the example application, the authoring application
receives both a metadata update and a content update. The metadata
update indicates the second user has released the lock 2022 on the
second data unit and has obtained a lock (see lock 2028 of FIG. 17)
on the first data unit. In this example, the second user
synchronized a lock request for the first data unit with the master
copy before the first user. Accordingly, the second user was
awarded the lock on the first data unit. The metadata update also
indicates a third user has obtained a third lock 2026 on the third
data unit. The content update indicates the second user has edited
the first data unit to change the word "lazy" to "lively".
[0109] When the authoring application receives the update, the
authoring application determines whether any editing conflicts
exist between the user copy and the received update. If no editing
conflicts exist, then the authoring application instantiates the
metadata updates automatically (see update operation 308 of FIG.
3). In the example application, the metadata update indicates the
third user has established a lock on the third data unit.
Accordingly, the third lock 2026 is shown around the third data
unit in FIG. 16A.
[0110] In one embodiment, if a metadata update conflicts with a
user change, however, then the metadata update is not instantiated
until the user attempts to synchronize the user copy with the
master copy. In the example application, the metadata update
indicates the second user has a lock on the first data unit, which
conflicts with the first user's request to lock the first data
unit. Accordingly, the second user's lock on the first data unit is
not instantiated into the user copy automatically. In another
embodiment, a release of a content lock is not instantiated until
any identified editing conflicts are resolved. Accordingly, the
second user's release of the lock 2022 on the second data unit is
not instantiated into the user copy automatically.
[0111] If no editing conflicts exist, then the authoring
application also enables the user to determine when the content
updates should be instantiated (e.g., merged) into the user copy of
the data file (see update operation 308 of FIG. 3). For example,
the authoring application may provide an instantiation interface by
which the first user may provide instructions to instantiate the
update. Non-limiting examples of instantiation interfaces include
buttons, menu options, and other interface tools.
[0112] If the authoring application identifies an editing conflict,
however, then the authoring application inhibits the user from
instantiating the updates into the user copy. In one embodiment,
the authoring application does not display an instantiation
interface. In another embodiment, the authoring application does
not display an indication of the availability of the update. In the
example application, the metadata update conflicts with a user
change. Accordingly, the authoring application does not provide the
first user with an opportunity to instantiate the content
update.
[0113] In FIG. 17, the first user instructs the authoring
application to attempt to synchronize the user copy of the data
file with the master copy (see synchronize operation 310 of FIG.
3). In one embodiment, the authoring application implements the
synchronize process 500 shown in FIG. 5. The authoring application
obtains an updates from the master copy if appropriate (see obtain
operation 504 of FIG. 5) and determines whether any editing
conflicts result from the update (see identify operation 506 of
FIG. 5). In the example shown, the authoring application does not
obtain any new updates (i.e., no intervening changes have been made
to the master copy since the last update). The authoring
application determines that intervening changes represented by the
previously received update conflict with user changes.
[0114] The authoring application then merges the user copy of the
data file with the master copy of the data file (see merge
operations 508 of FIG. 5) and displays the merged copy of the data
file to the first user. In the example shown, the authoring
application displays the merged version of the data file in the
editing area 2012 in FIG. 17. In general, the authoring application
may integrate the user and master copies using any desired merge
technique. For example, in one embodiment, the authoring
application displays all content added to, deleted from, and/or
revised in the user copy of the data file and the master copy of
the data file.
[0115] In another embodiment, the authoring application may
determine the version of the data file represented by the master
copy and may perform any content or formatting additions,
deletions, and/or revisions from the user copy on unlocked data
units of the master copy version of the data file (i.e.,
instantiates mergeable conflicts). For unmergeable conflicts, such
as user edits to data units locked on the master copy (e.g., user
edits performed prior to receiving the metadata update indicating
the lock), the authoring application may add a duplicate data unit
adjacent the locked data unit and may revise the duplicate data
unit based on the revisions made in the user copy (e.g., change
content, add a content lock, etc.). Accordingly, the data unit
remains locked and unchanged in accordance with the state of the
master copy. However, changes to the data unit by the first user
are retained in the merged version of the data file until the first
user chooses to remove them.
[0116] In the example shown in FIG. 17, the first data unit is
shown locked by the second user (see lock 202) and changed by
editing operations performed by the second user. For example, the
second occurrence of the word "lazy" has been changed to "lively".
A duplicate of the first data unit has been generated and arranged
adjacent the first data unit. The duplicate is locked to the first
user (see lock 2024) and includes revisions made by the first user
prior to the attempt to synchronize (e.g., the second occurrence of
"dog" has been changed to "doe"). The second data unit is still
locked to the second user in FIG. 17. In one embodiment, the
authoring application only releases locks when the user copy is
synchronized with the master copy. In another embodiment, the
authoring application only releases locks when the locked data unit
is fully synchronized. In other embodiments, the authoring
application may indicate the lock has been released.
[0117] Because the authoring application has identified editing
conflicts, the authoring application does not continue to save to
the master copy (see first determination module 510 of FIG. 5).
Rather, the authoring application displays one or more alert
messages to notify the first user of the existence of the editing
conflicts (see alert operation 512 of FIG. 5). For example, in FIG.
17, an alert 2017 is displayed in the display window 2010 to inform
the first user of the presence of editing conflicts. In the example
shown, the status bar 2018 also has been updated to indicate the
presence of editing conflicts. In other embodiments, the status bar
2018 may be updated to indicate a number of updates that have not
yet been instantiated, a number of editing conflicts identified, or
other such information. In still other embodiments, other types of
alerts or indicia may provide notice of the existence of editing
conflicts to the first user.
[0118] The authoring application also presents a toggle interface
2015 to the first user in FIG. 17 to enable the user to choose
between continuing to edit the data file without viewing conflicts
and reviewing the editing conflicts (see second determination
module 514). The first user may choose to continue editing the data
file without reviewing the editing conflicts (see continue
operation 516 of FIG. 5). The first user also may choose to select
the toggle interface 2015 to reveal the editing conflicts (see
review operation 518 of FIG. 5). In one embodiment, selection of
the toggle interface 2015 also activates a summary window 2030. The
first user may continue to edit the merged version of the data file
regardless of whether the first user chooses to view the editing
conflicts.
[0119] One example process by which the authoring application may
implement the review operation 518 of FIG. 5 includes the review
process 700 of FIG. 7. When the user selects the toggle interface
2015 (FIG. 17), the authoring application presents the editing
conflicts to the user (see display operation 704 of FIG. 7). For
example, in one embodiment, selecting the toggle interface 2015
splits the display window 2010 between the editing area 2012 and a
summary window 2030 in which the editing conflicts are listed (see
list 2034 of FIG. 18) and summary information about the conflicts
may be displayed (see summary area 2032 of FIG. 18).
[0120] In general, the editing area 2012 displays the merged
version of the data file and enables the user to freely edit the
merged version. In some embodiments, the merged version of the data
file displayed in the editing area 2012 is annotated to indicate
which portions of content are in conflict. For example, in one
embodiment, the merged version of the data file is annotated to
indicate whether the conflicting content resulted from insertions
(e.g., via underlining or other formatting, text color,
highlighting, or other such indicia) or deletions (e.g., via
strikethroughs or other formatting, text color, highlighting, or
other such indicia).
[0121] In the example shown, revisions to content are shows as a
series of deletions and insertions. In other embodiments, however,
revisions to content may be distinctly annotated. In other
embodiments, the metadata (e.g., locks) also may be annotated to
indicate which portions of metadata conflict. In the example shown
in FIG. 18, the first data unit does not contain any editing
conflicts since the first data unit is locked on the server to the
second user. Accordingly, the first data unit is not annotated. The
duplicate data unit, which is shown in FIG. 18 as locked to the
first user, is underlined to indicate the data unit has been
inserted into the data file.
[0122] The conflicting editing operations also are displayed by the
summary window 2030. The summary area 2032 of the resolution
interface indicates the number of conflicting editing operations
contained within the merged version of the data file. In the
example shown, the summary area 2032 indicates one conflicting
editing operation has been identified. The listing 2034 of the
summary window 2030 displays the conflicting content. In one
embodiment, the listing 2034 displays the conflicting content
separate from the non-conflicting content. In another embodiment,
the listing 2034 annotates the conflicting content to indicate
whether the content as inserted and/or deleted (e.g., see indicia
2036 of FIG. 18). In another embodiment, the listing 2034 annotates
the conflicting content to indicate the origin (e.g., user copy or
master copy) of the conflicting content (e.g., see indicia 2038 of
FIG. 18).
[0123] The first user of the authoring application may interact
with either the editing area 2012 or the summary window 2030 (FIG.
18) to provide instructions (see obtain operation 706 of FIG. 7)
either to return to editing the data file or to resolve any of the
editing conflicts displayed (see first determination module 708 of
FIG. 7). For example, in one embodiment, the user may select the
toggle interface 2015 again to hide the editing conflicts. Choosing
to hide the conflicts removes the annotations from the editing
conflicts. In one embodiment, choosing to hide the editing
conflicts will cause the user interface 2000 of FIG. 17 to be
displayed. The synchronize process 700 would end (see stop module
714 of FIG. 7), the authoring application would determine that at
least one editing conflict remained unresolved (see first
determination module 510 of FIG. 5), and the first user would again
be able to choose between freely editing the data file and
resolving conflicts.
[0124] Alternatively, the first user may provide instructions to
accept or reject conflicting content or portions thereof. In one
embodiment, the first user may select content displayed within the
editing area 2012 of the display window 2010 and may select an
option on a resolution interface to provide instructions to resolve
the editing operation. For example, the first user may select the
content on which instructions are to be provided and may select a
menu option from a resolution mention 2040 (see FIG. 19). In other
embodiments, the first user may provide the resolution instruction
using another type of resolution interface tool.
[0125] In the example shown in FIG. 19, the first user selects (see
selection indicia 2013) a first portion of the conflicting content
and selects a reject option on the resolution menu 2040 via the
cursor 2019. Accordingly, the authoring application determines the
user has not provided instructions to return to editing (see first
determination module 708 of FIG. 7) and performs the resolution
instruction (see implement operation 710 of FIG. 7). In other
embodiments, the first user may have selected all or a different
portion of the conflicting content.
[0126] One example process by which the authoring application may
perform the rejection of the selected portion of the conflicting
content is the reject process 1200 of FIG. 14. The authoring
application removes the annotations from the selected conflicting
content in the editing area 2012 of the display window 2010 (see
clean operation 1204 of FIG. 14). The authoring application also
determines (see determination module 1206 of FIG. 14) the rejected
editing operation resulted in the selected conflicting content
being added into the data file. Accordingly, the authoring
application removes the selected conflicting content from the
merged version of the data file (see remove operation 1208 of FIG.
14). If the editing operation had resulted in content being
deleted, then the reject process 1200 would have ended without
removing the selected conflicting content from the data file.
[0127] Returning to the review process 700 of FIG. 7, the authoring
application determines that at least one of the identified editing
conflicts remains unresolved (see second determination module 712
of FIG. 7), thereby restarting the review process 700. By
restarting the review process 700, the first user may choose to
continue resolving editing conflicts (e.g., using the review
process 700 of FIG. 7) while the user interface is configured in
the conflict resolution mode. Alternatively, the first user may
choose to hide the editing conflicts at any time by selecting the
toggle interface 2015.
[0128] FIG. 20 shows the user interface 2000 after the first user
has rejected the selected conflicting content (see display
operation 704 of FIG. 7). The rejected conflicting content has been
removed from the editing area 2012. Furthermore, the authoring
application updates the summary window 2030 to reflect the
resolution of the conflicting content by removing the rejected
content from the listing 2034 within the summary window 2030.
Because the conflicting content was not completely resolved, the
summary area 2032 remains unchanged.
[0129] Continuing with the review process 700, the authoring
application obtains another set of instructions from the first user
(see obtain operation 706 of FIG. 7). In this example application,
the authoring application obtains instructions to resolve the
remaining conflicting content. For example, FIG. 21 illustrates
another resolution interface 2050 with which the first user may
provide resolution instructions to the authoring application. The
resolution interface 2050 is a menu listing resolution options
(e.g., accept, reject, etc.). The menu is arranged adjacent the
selected conflicting content. In one embodiment, the authoring
application displays the resolution interface 2050 when the user
selects conflicting edits from the listing 2034 within the summary
window 2030. In another embodiment, the authoring application may
display the resolution interface 2050 within the editing area 2012
when conflicting content is selected within the editing area 2012.
In other embodiments, however, the first user may use any desired
type of resolution interface to provide resolution instructions to
the authoring application.
[0130] In FIG. 21, the user selects (e.g., via a right mouse click,
via a left mouse click, hovers over, or otherwise selects via
another input device) the remaining conflicting content within the
listing 2034 of the summary window 2030 and selects the accept
option on the resolution interface 2050 (e.g., using the cursor
2019). Accordingly, the authoring application determines the first
user did not provide instructions to hide the editing conflicts and
return to editing (see determination module 708 of FIG. 7) and
implements the accept instruction (see implement operation 710 of
FIG. 7).
[0131] One example process by which the authoring application may
accept the selected conflicting content includes the accept process
1100 of FIG. 13. The authoring application removes any annotations
from the selected conflicting content (see clean operation 1104 of
FIG. 13). The authoring application determines the selected
conflicting content was inserted into the data file (see
determination module 1106 of FIG. 13). Accordingly, the accept
process 1100 completes and ends (see stop module 1110 of FIG. 13).
If the authoring application had determined the conflicting content
was deleted from the data file, then the authoring application
would have deleted the conflicting content from the data file (see
remove operation 1108 of FIG. 13).
[0132] Returning to the review process 700 of FIG. 7, the authoring
application determines no more editing conflicts remain unresolved
(see second determination module 712). Accordingly, the review
process 700 completes and ends (see stop module 714 of FIG. 7),
thereby completing the review operation 514 of the synchronize
process 500 of FIG. 5. The synchronize process 500 proceeds back to
the first determination module 510 at which the authoring
application determines whether any identified editing conflicts
remain unresolved.
[0133] Since the first user resolved all identified editing
conflicts in this example application, the authoring application
determines that no editing conflicts remain unresolved.
Accordingly, the authoring application checks with the master copy
to determine whether additional updates are available (see the
second determination module 520 of FIG. 5). If additional updates
have become available, then the synchronization process 500 cycles
back to obtain and merge the new updates. The new update includes
any intervening changes made since the previous update was
obtained. Any conflicts stemming from the new update are resolved
as discussed above. This process of obtaining updates and resolving
any identified conflicts repeats until the first user has resolved
all editing conflicts between the user copy of the data file and
the current state of the master copy of the data file.
[0134] When the authoring application determines no editing
conflicts exist (see first determination module 510 of FIG. 5) and
no new updates are available (see second determination module 520
of FIG. 5), the authoring application sends an update from the user
copy to the master copy (see store operation 522 of FIG. 5) to
complete synchronization of the user and master copies. For
example, in one embodiment, the authoring application may send the
user copy in its entirety to a storage device with instructions to
overwrite the master copy. In another embodiment, the authoring
application may send an incremental update indicating how the user
copy differs from the master copy.
[0135] The authoring application alerts the first user when the
authoring application successfully uploads the update to the master
copy (see indicate operation 524 of FIG. 5). For example, in FIG.
22, the status bar 2018 has been updated to indicate the update was
successfully transmitted. In some embodiments, the authoring
application also may display an alert window 2060 indicating the
success of the upload. In one embodiment, the alert window 2060 may
provide further explanation, e.g., indicating consequences of the
upload. In the example shown in FIG. 22, the summary window 2030 is
removed from the user interface since no editing conflicts are
identified. In other embodiments, however, the summary window 2030
may remain until toggled by the first user.
[0136] The second example application, in which the first user is
editing a data file offline, is provided in FIGS. 23-29. In FIG.
23, a user interface 2200 of an authoring application includes a
display window 2210 including an editing area 2212 displaying
content of the user copy of the data file, a command toolbar 2216
providing command options, and a status bar 2218 indicating a
status of the user copy of the data file. For example, the user
interface 2200 may be the same as user interface 2000 of FIG.
15.
[0137] In the example shown, the status bar 2218 indicates the
first user is editing a user copy of a data file offline (i.e., is
not communicatively connected to a storage device storing a master
copy of the data file). Another user has a lock 2222 on the first
data unit within the editing area 2212. Accordingly, the authoring
application inhibits the first user from editing the first data
unit.
[0138] The authoring application enables editing of the user copy
of the data file, for example, using the example authoring process
300 of FIG. 3. In the example shown, the authoring application
enables the first user to edit the user copy of the data file
freely (see edit operation 304 of FIG. 3) within the editing area
2012 of the display window 2010. FIG. 24 illustrates editing
changes made by the first user to the user copy of the data file.
In particular, the first user has added two sentences to the third
data unit. In other embodiments, however, the first user may have
added, revised, and/or deleted any content or metadata within the
user copy of the data file.
[0139] Because the first user is editing the user copy offline, the
authoring application cannot synchronize a lock request for the
third data unit. In one embodiment, the authoring application
stores the lock request until the user logs online. In such an
embodiment, the authoring application may display a lock around the
third data unit. In another embodiment, the authoring application
does not attempt to lock the third data unit. In one embodiment,
the authoring application alerts the first user that a lock request
cannot be synchronized and, accordingly, that editing the data unit
may result in editing conflicts. For the purposes of this example
application, the authoring application stores the lock request for
later synchronization with the master copy.
[0140] In FIG. 25, the authoring application obtains updates
indicating intervening changes made to the master copy of the data
file (see receive operation 306 of FIG. 3). In one embodiment, the
authoring application receives the update after a predetermined
interval of time elapses. In another embodiment, the authoring
application receives the update in response to a request to
synchronize the user copy with the master copy. For the purposes of
this example application, the authoring application is assumed to
have received the update automatically after a predetermined time
interval. The status bar 2218 of the display window 2210 has been
updated in FIG. 25 to indicate an update has been received.
[0141] When the authoring application receives the update, the
authoring application determines whether any editing conflicts
exist between the user copy and the received update. If no editing
conflicts exist, then the authoring application instantiates the
metadata updates automatically (see update operation 308 of FIG.
3). For the purposes of this example application, the authoring
application is assumed to have received a content update indicating
changes made to the third data unit, which conflicts with the first
user's lock request for the third data unit. However, the update
does not indicate a lock around the third data unit (e.g., the
other user may have locked the third data unit when making the edit
and subsequently released the lock). Accordingly, the authoring
application does not provide the first user with an instantiation
interface or otherwise inhibits instantiation of the update.
[0142] In FIG. 26, the first user connects to the storage device
(i.e., logs online) and instructs the authoring application to
attempt to synchronize the user copy of the data file with the
master copy (see synchronize operation 310 of FIG. 3). In one
embodiment, the authoring application implements the synchronize
process 500 shown in FIG. 5. The authoring application obtains an
updates from the master copy if appropriate (see obtain operation
504) and determines whether any editing conflicts result from the
update (see identify operation 506). In the example shown, the
authoring application does not obtain any new updates (e.g., no
intervening changes have been made to the master copy since the
last update). The authoring application determines that intervening
changes represented by the previously received update (e.g., the
added content to the third data unit) conflict with user changes
(e.g., the lock request for the third data unit).
[0143] The authoring application then merges the user copy of the
data file with the master copy of the data file (see merge
operations 508 of FIG. 5) and displays the merged copy of the data
file to the first user. In the example shown, the authoring
application displays the merged version of the data file in the
editing area 2212 in FIG. 26. As noted above, the authoring
application may integrate the user and master copies using any
desired merge technique. In the example shown, the authoring
application has added new content from the master copy to the first
and third data units of the user copy.
[0144] The first set of new content, "TBD," which was added to the
first data unit, does not result in an editing conflict. The first
user did not edit the first data unit. The second set of new
content, "Jump, fox, jump!", which was added to the third data
unit, results in an editing conflict since the first user attempted
to lock the third data unit. The other user was able to edit the
third data unit since the first user's lock request has not yet
been synchronized with the master copy prior to the edit. However,
since the update does not indicate the third data unit is locked by
another user, the first user's lock is maintained around the third
data unit.
[0145] Because the authoring application has identified an editing
conflict, the authoring application does not continue to save to
the master copy (see first determination module 510 of FIG. 5).
Rather, the authoring application displays one or more alert
messages to notify the first user of the existence of the editing
conflicts (see alert operation 512 of FIG. 5). For example, in FIG.
26, an alert 2217 is displayed in the display window 2210 to inform
the first user of the presence of editing conflicts. In the example
shown, the status bar 2218 also has been updated to indicate the
presence of editing conflicts. In other embodiments, the status bar
2218 may be updated to indicate a number of updates that have not
yet been instantiated, a number of editing conflicts identified, or
other such information. In still other embodiments, other types of
alerts or indicia may provide notice of the existence of editing
conflicts to the first user.
[0146] The authoring application also presents a toggle interface
2215 to the first user in FIG. 26 to enable the user to choose
between continuing to edit the data file without viewing the
editing conflicts and reviewing the editing conflicts (see second
determination module 514 of FIG. 5). The first user may choose to
continue editing the data file without reviewing the editing
conflicts (see continue operation 516 of FIG. 5). The first user
also may choose to select the toggle interface 2215 (FIG. 26) to
reveal the editing conflicts (see review operation 518 of FIG. 5).
In one embodiment, selection of the toggle interface 2215 also
activates a summary window 2230 (see FIG. 27). The first user may
continue to edit the merged version of the data file regardless of
whether or not the first user chooses to view the editing
conflicts.
[0147] One example process by which the authoring application may
implement the review operation 518 of FIG. 5 includes the review
process 700 of FIG. 7. When the user selects the toggle interface
2215, the authoring application presents the editing conflicts to
the user (see display operation 704 of FIG. 7). For example, in one
embodiment, selecting the toggle interface 2215 splits the display
window 2210 between the editing area 2212 and a summary window 2230
in which the editing conflicts are listed (see list 2234) and
summary information about the conflicts may be displayed (see
summary area 2232).
[0148] In general, the editing area 2212 displays the merged
version of the data file and enables the user to freely edit the
merged version. In some embodiments, the merged version of the data
file displayed in the editing area 2212 is annotated to indicate
which portions of content are in conflict. For example, in one
embodiment, the merged version of the data file is annotated to
indicate whether the conflicting content resulted from insertions
(e.g., via underlining or other formatting, font color,
highlighting, opacity, or other such indicia) or deletions (e.g.,
via strikethroughs or other formatting, font color, highlighting,
opacity, or other such indicia).
[0149] In the example shown, the first data unit does not contain
any editing conflicts since the first data unit is locked on the
server to the second user. Accordingly, the first data unit is not
annotated. The second data unit also does not contain any editing
conflicts so the second data unit is not annotated. Some content
within the third data unit, which is shown as locked to the first
user, is underlined to indicate the content has been inserted into
the data unit.
[0150] In one embodiment, only conflicting content originating from
the user copy is annotated. Advantageously, only annotating user
created conflicts allows the user to understand the state of the
master copy of the data file and differences between the master
copy and the user copy. In other embodiments, however, conflicting
content originating from the master copy may be annotated as well
as or in place of the conflicting content from the user copy.
[0151] The conflicting editing operations also are displayed by the
summary window 2230. The summary area 2232 of the resolution
interface indicates the number of conflicting editing operations
contained within the merged version of the data file. In the
example shown, the summary area 2232 indicates one conflicting
editing operation has been identified. The listing 2234 of the
summary window 2230 displays the conflicting content. In one
embodiment, the listing 2234 displays the conflicting content
separate from the non-conflicting content. In another embodiment,
the listing 2234 annotates the conflicting content to indicate
whether the content as inserted and/or deleted (e.g., see indicia
2236 of FIG. 27). In another embodiment, the listing 2234 annotates
the conflicting content to indicate the origin (e.g., user copy or
master copy) of the conflicting content (e.g., see indicia 2238 of
FIG. 27).
[0152] The first user of the authoring application may interact
with a resolution interface (e.g., see resolution interface 2240 of
FIG. 27) to provide instructions (see obtain operation 706 of FIG.
7) either to return to editing the data file or to resolve any of
the editing conflicts displayed (see first determination module 708
of FIG. 7). For example, in one embodiment, the user may select the
toggle interface 2215 again to hide the editing conflicts as
discussed above.
[0153] Alternatively, the first user may provide instructions to
accept or reject conflicting content or portions thereof. In one
embodiment, the first user may select content displayed within the
editing area 2012 of the display window 2010 and may select an
option on a resolution interface 2240 to provide instructions to
resolve the editing operation. For example, the first user may
select the content on which instructions are to be provided and may
select an accept button 2242 or a reject button 2244 from an
example resolution interface 2040 (see FIG. 27). The example
resolution interface 2040 also may include a next button 2246 and a
previous button 2248 for sequencing among conflicts. In other
embodiments, the first user may provide the resolution instruction
using another type of resolution interface tool.
[0154] In the example shown in FIG. 28, the first user selects a
first portion of the conflicting content (see selection indicia
2213 in the summary window 2230) and selects an accept button 2242
on the resolution interface 2040 via a cursor 2219. In other
embodiments, however, the first user may have provided the
instruction via any desired resolution interface. Accordingly, the
authoring application determines the user has not provided
instructions to return to editing (see first determination module
708 of FIG. 7) and performs the resolution instruction (see
implement operation 710 of FIG. 7).
[0155] One example process by which the authoring application may
accept the selected conflicting content includes the accept process
1100 of FIG. 13. The authoring application removes any annotations
from the selected conflicting content (see clean operation 1104 of
FIG. 13). The authoring application determines the selected
conflicting content was inserted into the data file (see
determination module 1106 of FIG. 13). Accordingly, the accept
process 1100 completes and ends (see stop module 1110 of FIG. 13).
If the authoring application had determined the conflicting content
was deleted from the data file, then the authoring application
would have deleted the conflicting content from the data file (see
remove operation 1108 of FIG. 13).
[0156] Returning to the review process 700 of FIG. 7, the authoring
application determines no more editing conflicts remain unresolved
(see second determination module 712 of FIG. 7). Accordingly, the
review process 700 completes and ends (see stop module 714 of FIG.
7), thereby completing the review operation 514 of the synchronize
process 500 of FIG. 5. The synchronize process 500 proceeds back to
the first determination module 510 (FIG. 5) at which the authoring
application determines no editing conflicts remain unresolved. The
authoring application also determines no additional updates are
available from the master copy (see the second determination module
520 of FIG. 5) and, accordingly, sends an update from the user copy
to the master copy (see store operation 522 of FIG. 5) to complete
synchronization of the user and master copies.
[0157] The authoring application alerts the first user when the
authoring application successfully uploads the update to the master
copy (see indicate operation 524 of FIG. 5). For example, in FIG.
29, the status bar 2218 has been updated to indicate the update was
successfully transmitted. In some embodiments, the authoring
application also may display an alert window 2260 indicating the
success of the upload. In one embodiment, the alert window 2260 may
provide further explanation, e.g., indicating consequences of the
successful upload. In the example shown in FIG. 29, the summary
window 2230 is removed from the user interface 2200 since no
identified editing conflicts remain unresolved. In other
embodiments, however, the summary window 2230 may remain until
deactivated by the first user (e.g., via toggle interface 2215 of
FIGS. 27 and 28).
[0158] Embodiments of the disclosure may be implemented as a
computer process (method), a computing system, or as an article of
manufacture, such as a computer program product or computer
readable media. The processes (programs) can be implemented in any
number of ways, including the structures described in this
document. One such way is by machine operations, of devices of the
type described in this document. Another optional way is for one or
more of the individual operations of the methods to be performed on
a computing device in conjunction with one or more human operators
performing some of the operations. These human operators need not
be collocated with each other, but each can be only with a machine
that performs a portion of the program.
[0159] The computer program product may be a computer storage media
readable by a computer system and encoding a computer program of
instructions for executing a computer process. The computer program
product may also be a propagated signal on a carrier readable by a
computing system and encoding a computer program of instructions
for executing a computer process. The term computer readable media
as used herein includes both storage media and communication
media.
[0160] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the disclosure
may be practiced with other computer system configurations,
including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems,
microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics,
minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The disclosure
may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where
tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked
through a communications network. In a distributed computing
environment, program modules may be located in both local and
remote memory storage devices. Generally, program modules include
routines, programs, components, data structures, and other types of
structures that perform particular tasks or implement particular
abstract data types.
* * * * *